E-Discovery for Everybody: The EDna Challenge - Craig Ball

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4. Expand files that hold messages and other files. Here, you should identify e-mail container files (like Outlook .PST files) and archives (e.g., .Zip files) that must be opened or decompressed to make their constituents amenable to search. For email, this can be done using an inexpensive utility like Aid4mail from Fookes Software or Trident Lite from Wave Software. Additionally, e-mail client applications, including Outlook, usually permit export of individual messages and attachments. Though dtSearch includes a command line utility to convert Outlook PST container files to individual messages (.MSG) files for indexing, it doesn't work well or easily compared to Aid4Mail. Finally, most indexing tools are capable of directly accessing text within compressed formats. For example, DTSearch can extract text from Zip files and other archives. 5. A feature common to premium e-discovery tools but hard to match with off-theshelf software is deduplication. You can use hash values to identify identical files, but the challenge is to keep track of all de-duplicated content and reliably apply tagging for privilege and responsiveness to all deduplicated iterations. Most off-the-shelf utilities simply eliminate duplicates and so aren't suited to ediscovery. This is where it's a good investment to secure help from an expert in Microsoft Excel or Access because those applications can be programmed to support deduplication tracking and tagging. When employing deduplication, keep in mind that files with matching hash values can have different filenames and dates. The hash identicality of two files speaks to the contents of the files, not the names assigned to the files by the operating system or to information, like modified, accessed and created dates, stored outside the files. 6. Above all, don't process and review ESI in a vacuum. Be certain that you understand the other side's expectations in terms of the scope of the effort, approach to search and--critically--the forms of production they seek. You may not agree on much, but you may be pleasantly surprised to learn that some of the perils of a low budget e-discovery effort (e.g., altered metadata, limited search capabilities, native production formats) don't concern the other side. Further, you may reach accord on limiting the scope of review in terms of time intervals, custodians and types of data under scrutiny. Why look at all the e-mail if the other side is content with your searching just communications between Don and Betty during the third week of January 2009? Finally, Edna may seek an answer to two common questions from those taking the doit-yourself route in e-discovery: What if I change metadata? Certain system metadata values--e.g., last access times and creation dates--are prone to alteration when processed using tools not designed for e-discovery. Such changes are rarely a problem if you adhere to three rules:
1. Preserve an unaltered copy of whatever you're about to process; 2. Understand what metadata were altered; and, 3. Disclose the changes to the requesting party. By keeping a copy of the data at each step, you can recover true metadata values if particular values proves significant. Then, disclosing what metadata values were changed eliminates any suggestion that you pulled a fast one. Many requesting parties have little regard for system metadata values; but, they don't want to be surprised by relying on inaccurate information. Can I Use My Own E-Mail Account for Review? You wouldn't commingle client funds with your own money, so why commingle e-mail that's evidence in a case with your own mail? That said, when ESI is evidence and the budget leaves no alternative, you may be forced to use your own e-mail tools for smallscale review efforts. If so, remember that you can create alternate user accounts within Windows to avoid commingling client data with your own. Better still, undertake the review using a machine with a clean install of the operating system. Very tech-savvy counsel can employ virtual environments (e.g., VMWare products) to the same end. If using an e-mail client for review, it may be sufficient to categorize messages and attachments by simply dragging them to folders representing review categories; for example: 1. Attorney-client privilege: entire item; 2. Work product privilege: entire item; 3. A-C Privilege: needs redaction; 4. W-P privilege: needs redaction; 5. Other privilege; 6. Responsive; 7. Non-responsive. Once categorized, the contents of the various folders can be exported for further processing or for production, if in a suitable format. Throwing Down The Gauntlet The vast majority of cases filed, developed and tried in the United States are not multimillion dollar dust ups between big companies. The evidence in modest cases is digital, too. Solo and small firm counsel like Edna need affordable, user-friendly tools designed for desktop ediscovery--tools that preserve metadata, offer efficient workflow and ably handle the common file formats that account for nearly all of the ESI seen in day-to-day litigation. Using the tools and techniques described by my thoughtful colleagues, Edna will get the job done on time and under budget. The pieces are there, though the integration falls short. So, how about it e-discovery industry? Can you divert your gaze from the golden calf long enough to see the future and recall the past? Sam Walton became the richest man of his era by selling to more for less. There's a fast growing need...and a huge emerging market. The real Edna Challenge is waiting for the visionaries who will meet the need and serve the market.
Page 2 and 3: E-Discovery for Everybody: The EDna
Page 4 and 5: One possible bright spot was the em
Page 6 and 7: concludes that, although working wi

E-Discovery for Everybody: The EDna Challenge - Craig Ball

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?